About a month ago, the 15th anniversary of President
Clinton's welfare-to-work program quietly passed. Built on the backdrop on the dot-com boom and predicated on the false belief that hard work was all one needed
to succeed, the welfare-to-work program effectively cut a hole into the social
safety net and drastically changed how we care for others in need.

In came Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
whose requirements vary tremendously by state with the exception of one: the
50% Work Participation Rate, which means that for half the caseload, one or
more adults are required to participate in a narrowly defined set of work
activities for 30 hours a week.

What does this mean for a country, whose unemployment rate
has risen 88% from 2007-2010? Some say the effectiveness of a government aid
program can be best evaluated during times of need. Countries like Columbia,
Georgia, Ethiopia and Mexico built their safety net systems during stable times
to account for unanticipated events like droughts or food insecurity. The U.S.,
however, did the exact opposite, pulling back resources during an economic
boom. And the absence of a social safety shows.

The Urban Institute's analysis of welfare during this
period of high unemployment is striking. Here are their latest analysis from August 2011:

TANF has not played a counter cyclical role
during the current recession;

Unemployment benefits substitute for welfare: In
three of ten low-income (below 200 percent of the federal poverty
level) single parents received unemployment benefits in 2009, double
the share receiving in 2005;

TANF benefits have remained flat over the past
15 years, diminishing the value to low-income families;

Attitudes are changing about participation: The
share of eligible families for welfare assistance that enroll in the program
has dropped from over 80% before TANF in 2006 to 40% in 2005.

What the Urban Institute's research shows is that people in
need are discouraged from using TANF, and that the program's responsiveness to unemployment
varies greatly by state: Arizona's unemployment rate rose by 146% yet they had
the largest decline in TANF enrollment in the nation. California had 80% of
poor families enrolled in TANF in 2009 while Texas only had 8% enrolled. State
discretion over defining eligibility (i.e. defining ‘family’) has led to huge
variability in which families can benefit from TANF.

This finding was also echoed in research conducted for Strong Families.
Sara Taylor of Law Students
for Reproductive Justice examined how ‘family’ is defined the social
safety net programs and found that out of all of the programs (food stamps,
Section 8, etc) TANF has the most restrictive definition of family and that
when states have a hand in defining eligibility, the impact of the program drastically varies from state to state.

She also discovered that when Congress remodeled the program
in 1996, the purpose of the program was redefined to benefit
married, heterosexual couples with biological children. And just four
years later, the 2000 Census found that only 22.4% of families meet the
definition of a married, heterosexual couple with biological children--so it's no wonder why so many families are losing out.

President Obama is attempting to counter this dismal situation
with his “American Jobs Act” that he rolled out last Thursday, hoping to
capture the families that have fallen through the cracks with a modest mix of
tax breaks, unemployment insurance benefits, and infrastructure spending. It is
a bipartisan plan that has mixed reviews during a time when some say the economy might
droop into a double dip recession.

Given what we know about social safety net programs like
TANF, what is recognized as work, and who is recognized as family, we can see
that by updating our understanding of work (or family), to greater reflect
lived realities in this decade we would go a long way toward ensuring that visions like Obama’s actually have the impact we
need—rights, recognition and resources so all of our families can thrive.